Selected tag(s): chemical identity

I’ve blogged here frequently about EPA’s efforts over the past couple of years to make more chemical information available to the public, especially health and safety information. A key part of this, believe it or not, is simply making sure that when EPA shares a health study with the public – as required by law – you get to know the identity of the chemical that is the subject of that study.

EPA’s initial steps (see below) were met with a little grumbling on the part of the chemical industry, but not a whole lot. After all, the industry says it wants the public to have more information about chemicals. At #7 on the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) top 10 principles for TSCA reform is: “Companies and EPA should work together to enhance public access to chemical health and safety information.”

Times, apparently, have changed. In recent weeks, ACC has launched a broadside attack on the EPA’s efforts to compel its member companies ever to name a chemical when submitting health and safety information to EPA. My evidence? A 36-page White Paper delivered by ACC to the office of the regulatory czar at the Office of Management and Budget, at a meeting held there on January 20. The ACC document is a wonder of tortured logic, obfuscation and selective renditions of the history of TSCA.

Today, a response was mounted. EDF and Earthjustice staff, as well as representatives of health-affected individuals, environmental justice communities and workers, held their own meeting with OMB officials. And we delivered our own letter to OMB that thoroughly rebuts ACC’s White Paper. It also points out that, way back in 1976, the drafters of TSCA actually wanted you to have access to health and safety information on chemicals – and they darn well didn’t expect you to have to guess at the identity of those chemicals. Read More »

Last August, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and over one hundred other groups recently filed a petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require manufacturers and processors of chemicals used in oil and gas exploration and production (E&P chemicals) – including those used in hydraulic fracturing fluids – both to conduct testing and submit to EPA health and environmental data they already have on hand.. The aim of the petition was to ensure EPA obtains better information on the identity, production, use and health/environmental effects of these chemicals in order to evaluate their health and environmental risks. Late last month, EPA announced its decision. Read More »

Japan and China are two of the U.S.’s top competitors, so it’s noteworthy that they have not allowed themselves to fall behind in chemicals management. Why are they expanding their chemicals regulations? Do they know something we don’t? Read More »

The day before the EPA meetings, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued its own “prioritization tool” which lays out its own criteria and ranking system for identifying chemicals of concern. This post will make a few observations about EPA’s proposal. My next post will provide a critique of ACC’s proposed tool.

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 was introduced in the U.S. Senate today by Senator Frank Lautenberg and is co-sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar, Charles Schumer, and Barbara Boxer.

In the TSCA reform debate, some things haven’t changed from last year: TSCA is just as badly in need of an overhaul, and consumers and the chemical industry’s customers have no more confidence in the safety of chemicals in use today than they did a year ago. States, other countries and the marketplace all continue to act to advance modern chemical safety policies and practices. We in the advocacy community are still waiting for the chemical industry to offer some of its own proposals for reform – though some individual companies and product associations have been more forthcoming.

In contrast, the 2011 version of the Safe Chemicals Act has changed in some important ways – and for the better. It includes a number of improvements over last year’s version that would both boost health protections and ease implementation and workability.

With the chemical industry and now Congressional Republicans mounting a last-minute effort to derail the EPA’s long-time-in-coming enhancements to its Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule (see our last post), it’s worth examining their main objections. That examination reveals a sea of red herrings. Here are a few of the smelliest ones, discussed in detail in this post: